Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2013 9:27:00 AM (view original):So, if SCOTUS has not ruled or been asked to rule, is a law unconstitutional?

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand. BL thinks DOMA is unconstitutional because he believes it goes against the 10th amendment. tec does not, because he interprets the 10th amendment in a different way. It's up for debate.

That is not correct. I have made no comment on the constitutionality (or not) of DOMA.

My only comment is that a process muct be followed before a law is conclusively and definitively deemed unconstitutional.

That process has not yet fully played out. DOMA is still active and still being enforced.

Unconstitutional laws cannot be active and enforced. Therefore, DOMA must be treated as constitutional until deemed otherwise.

When you stated that you didn't consider regulating marriage a "power", I assumed that was your take on the 10th amendment as it applies here. And good to know you won't be arguing things pertaining to the constitution moving forward.

A law can be considered unconstitutional and still an active law. If DOMA is thrown out, and you ask one of the judges "was DOMA unconstitutional yesterday?" he would say "Yes, that law should not have been passed."

Since we don't currently know the ultimate fate of DOMA, it's a bit premature to unequivocally state as absolute fact that it is unconstitutional.

It's premature to unequivocally state as absolute fact that DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, yes. It's never too early or late for someone to have an opinion on it though. Since the Constitution isn't exactly verbose, a lot of things are up for interpretation, which is why whether something is constitutional or not is often up for debate.

Does it make much sense for somebody who doesn't understand basketball to have an opinion on the merits of a 2-3 zone, and attempt to state their opinions as fact?

Does it make much sense for somebody who doesn't understand football to have an opinion on the merits of a 4-3 vs. a 3-4 defensive scheme, and attempt to state their opinions as fact?

Does it make much sense for somebody who has not had any training as a constitutional lawyer to have an opinion on the nuances of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and attempt to state their opinions as fact?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2013 9:27:00 AM (view original):So, if SCOTUS has not ruled or been asked to rule, is a law unconstitutional?

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand. BL thinks DOMA is unconstitutional because he believes it goes against the 10th amendment. tec does not, because he interprets the 10th amendment in a different way. It's up for debate.

That is not correct. I have made no comment on the constitutionality (or not) of DOMA.

My only comment is that a process muct be followed before a law is conclusively and definitively deemed unconstitutional.

That process has not yet fully played out. DOMA is still active and still being enforced.

Unconstitutional laws cannot be active and enforced. Therefore, DOMA must be treated as constitutional until deemed otherwise.

When you stated that you didn't consider regulating marriage a "power", I assumed that was your take on the 10th amendment as it applies here. And good to know you won't be arguing things pertaining to the constitution moving forward.

A law can be considered unconstitutional and still an active law. If DOMA is thrown out, and you ask one of the judges "was DOMA unconstitutional yesterday?" he would say "Yes, that law should not have been passed."

Since we don't currently know the ultimate fate of DOMA, it's a bit premature to unequivocally state as absolute fact that it is unconstitutional.

It's premature to unequivocally state as absolute fact that DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, yes. It's never too early or late for someone to have an opinion on it though. Since the Constitution isn't exactly verbose, a lot of things are up for interpretation, which is why whether something is constitutional or not is often up for debate.

Does it make much sense for somebody who doesn't understand basketball to have an opinion on the merits of a 2-3 zone, and attempt to state their opinions as fact?

Does it make much sense for somebody who doesn't understand football to have an opinion on the merits of a 4-3 vs. a 3-4 defensive scheme, and attempt to state their opinions as fact?

Does it make much sense for somebody who has not had any training as a constitutional lawyer to have an opinion on the nuances of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and attempt to state their opinions as fact?

No one is asking you to state your opinion as fact.

Things that are facts:

Joe Smith was convicted of murder.
The Patriots went 18-1 and didn't win the Super Bowl.
The Supreme Court overturned law X on grounds that it violates the Y amendment.

Things that can be just opinions:

Jim Johnson is a murderer.
The Patriots were the best team in football.
Law Z is unconstitutional because it violates X amendment.

But I'm glad that you clarified that you don't understand the constitution.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/24/2013 11:48:00 AM (view original):The Constitution is not a verbose document. I don't see why it should take years of specialized training to be able to understand it... The people that wrote it certainly were not trained in Constitutional law, and many of them weren't trained in law at all... Madison himself studied law a bit in college, but was not a lawyer.

If it's so simple, then any issues on constitutionality that make it to SCOTUS should always result in an immediate 9-0 decision.

It's really gonna bother me if DOMA and Prop 8 wind up falling on the same political side. It's probably going to happen. But from a constitutional perspective they almost have to have opposite political decisions - if DOMA is unconstitutional and the right to define marriage is reserved to the states, Prop 8 should be upheld. And vice versa.